Rand Paul brings up an interesting pont

[gabosaurus]

Commenting on the Benghazi hearing, Sen Rand Paul had this to say about Hillary Clinton's involvement:

"The responsibility falls on Clinton's shoulders...it happened on her watch."

Using this logic, doesn't this make GW Bush responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It happened under his watch. If Hillary was personally responsible for defending Benghazi, this obviously made Bush responsible for defending the U.S. from attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-benghazi/index.html

[Abbey Marie]

Commenting on the Benghazi hearing, Sen Rand Paul had this to say about Hillary Clinton's involvement:

"The responsibility falls on Clinton's shoulders...it happened on her watch."

Using this logic, doesn't this make GW Bush responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It happened under his watch. If Hillary was personally responsible for defending Benghazi, this obviously made Bush responsible for defending the U.S. from attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-benghazi/index.html


Nope.
If people knew the planes were heading towards the towers to take them out, and made repeated calls to President Bush to help them, and he watched and did nothing, you might have some sort of an analogy.

[Black Diamond]

Nope.
If people knew the planes were heading towards the towers to take them out, and made repeated calls to President Bush to help them, and he watched and did nothing, you might have some sort of an analogy.

As usual, she has nothing.

[Elessar]

Commenting on the Benghazi hearing, Sen Rand Paul had this to say about Hillary Clinton's involvement:

"The responsibility falls on Clinton's shoulders...it happened on her watch."

Using this logic, doesn't this make GW Bush responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It happened under his watch. If Hillary was personally responsible for defending Benghazi, this obviously made Bush responsible for defending the U.S. from attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-benghazi/index.html

You obviously did not read my other comment on the breakdown of Intel regarding 9/11.

That saga began on Clinton's watch. Just not really his fault as the Intel Agencies did
not share information.

After 9/11, GWB put a screeching halt to lack of Intel sharing.

I ran vessel checks and Wants and Warrants through EPIC. Before Bush put
everthing under one umbrella, you needed to get individual agency consent
to release info. We'd have a cutter doing a drug or migrant interdiction, and it would
take hours to get DEA, Customs, FBI, NSA to give us permission to get
a Statement of No Objection to continue the case.

Once more, you do not know what you are talking about.

This Libya thing was totally on Hilary and Obama.

Remember her campaign talking point: "Who would you want answering the phone at 3 a.m.?"
She did not answer the phone! Obama did not answer the phone either.

[Gunny]

Commenting on the Benghazi hearing, Sen Rand Paul had this to say about Hillary Clinton's involvement:

"The responsibility falls on Clinton's shoulders...it happened on her watch."

Using this logic, doesn't this make GW Bush responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It happened under his watch. If Hillary was personally responsible for defending Benghazi, this obviously made Bush responsible for defending the U.S. from attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-benghazi/index.html


This is like getting ready for a hurricane in the other thread. You want to be the guy that gives the order, or the pilot that has to carry it out? To shoot down a civilian passenger airliner? Hell of a call.

[Abbey Marie]

To my point above, for example, from the Benghazi hearing yesterday:


Hewitt played a few clips from the hearing, revealing that State Department personnel in Libya had requested additional security over 600 times in 2012 prior to the September 11 attacks on the diplomatic mission and nearby CIA annex that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

[jimnyc]

"IF" this were even remotely true...

Then I guess it goes back to the incompetent fella who could have taken in Bin Laden on a silver platter, and screwed it up. And now all the retarded Dem supporters want to ignore that he ignored the option to take in a man that later on is responsible for 3,000 deaths on our soil. All because Clinton was too fucking stupid. And now idiots like those starting such threads as this, will now vote for his "wife", who later even called for getting rid of Saddam, and making claims of WMD's in Iraq and such from 1998.

What's worse, being unaware of an impending terrorist attack - or being aware of a terrorist, being offered the man on a silver platter, and doing nothing about it? Sounds to me like the fucktard was the idiot voted in by Dems in the 90's. The same idiot who cheated on his wife, while she allowed it. The same man who still tries to cheat on his wife. With the wife with more scandals than most can count. The woman that Dems would vote for if she were a murderer.

And the worst fucktards of all are the dipshits that will gleefully run to the ballot to vote for Shrillary, knowing full well her scandals and personal problems over the years. And most will likely get that "tingling feeling running up their legs" as they vote for this scum of the earth.

[aboutime]

Once again. Gabby sounds more like Obama, easily blaming Bush for everything, and exposing her hatred for being so damned STUPID.

[Gunny]

Once again. Gabby sounds more like Obama, easily blaming Bush for everything, and exposing her hatred for being so damned STUPID.

Come on .. they're dragging up Reagan. Can't get a bunch more pathetic than THAT. Sh*t I had hair then it was so long ago.